It's nice to play characters that compliment each other, but at the end of the day playing something you're interested in is more important. A party of wizards can be it's own fun thing, for example. (Presumably as long as you have a GM that can roll with it? )

*Generally though if I know what the other players are doing, I do try to keep it versatile. There's ways to get creative even if the starting place is similar (like on druid thats more spell casting-y, and another that uses animal shape to tank)

I like playing the face- it's just fun playing a convincing character, and I'm the most comfortable actually role playing of my group anyway. But I plan on stepping back from that as they get more accustomed to it. Otherwise I'm a big fan of rougish characters and magic characters in general.

I have a really hard time vibe-ing with fighters. There's nothing wrong with them, it just doesn't really spark my inspiration.

There are boring ways to play them, but I don't think any are inherently boring.

I've never played D&D-type games. But, I played Skyrim many times. They offer a whole slew of companion characters like thieves, wizards, etc. The MC has a slew of beginning options, but each time I play, I choose a warrior Nord because it seems the most normal. Not interested to be a wizard or thief or lizard or cat. When I pick a companion, it's always Marcurio; he does it all. Just wish he didn't talk so much.

I've played TTRPGs for a long time, and a number of different ones, and I'm usually the DM or GM rather than a player. For me, party role is a pretty important part of the game, and I watch players carefully at character creation to make sure they don't rob themselves of having a unique role or niche.

It can be tiresome when the party has too many people who are good at the same thing. Too many characters trying to be the smooth seductive character with high charisma all swarming around one NPC and competing to seduce them at the same time gets a bit cringe, or two sneaky characters both looking at the same trap and one of them is like "If they fail, I'll try!", or all the strong characters taking turns to try to move the same rock. Combat can actually be less bad because D&D monsters are damage-sponges, but the problem usually happens if everyone is only good at "hit thing with sword", as the DM I can't put them up against an enemy with resistance to physical attacks because it'll be a slog, or "unfair", so their lack of a balanced party makes encounters boring.

The coolest feeling in TTRPGs is when you feel like your character just did something that shows why they're a vital part of the team. One of the most satisfying characters I ever played was in a game of "Magical Burst", a Magical Girl themed TTRPG inspired by Madoka, who was a tank. We had a party where the other two players had gone for damage-dealers, and so no healer, and my tank became absolutely vital for party surival in combats. Blocking the incoming damage, taking hits for my comrades and managing my HP pool made me feel like a strategic genius, it was amazing.

So, as you might guess, one of my favourite roles to play is tank. I particularly love Oath of Devotion Paladins in D&D because they have both a really cool combat role, striding right into the middle of combat to protect their friends and draw aggro fearlessly, but a really cool RP role as a person who must always strive to be as morally upstanding as possible, no matter how hard the situation makes it.

But I also really like utility classes like Wizards, Clerics and Bards, who have lots of different tools and the opportunity to pick just the right one to solve the problem. Clerics in particular can be so much fun because people seem to forget they're deliberately balanced to be the best class in the game to encourage people to play them, and always get surprised by how ridiculously badass they can be. There's nothing quite like playing the meek little healer most of the time and then suddenly busting out a rain of holy fire that obliterates a bunch of undead! Clerics are great; they have a really strong party role as "the best at healing", but aren't so focused on that they have to do the same thing every turn.

I played a german rpg in the 80s because my older brother was really into it.

I liked to play thugs, stupid warriors and human adventurers and they all had
to be funny in a way. I probably didn´t take the fantasy thing too serious.

I never played magicians, priests, elves or dwarves.

Priests sounded the most boring to me and I didn´t want to learn too many
rules, that was the main reason why I didn´t play magicians. I also can´t imagine
roleplaying a magicians, except when the magician is super crazy or evil.

1-what are your thoughts about party roles in general?

If you tell people "You can be whatever you want," they will, 99% of the time, reply, "I want to be a hobbit thief!" so you might as well play a game with set roles instead of a 'play what the GM will let you get away with' type system like GURPS.

2-which roles do you like and why?

The useless idiot coward so players with less experience wont expect me to lead the table.

3-which roles do you hate and why?

Anything that leads to "That's what my character would do."

4-do you think there are any boring roles?

There are only boring players.

1. Party Roles: Party roles should be flexible, but in an ideal party (4 or 5 in my opinion), everyone should have unique skills and the party should be balanced. Ultimately the game has to be fun for everyone, so people should play what they want to play, within reason, try to build characters that don't overlap too much, depending on party size, and the GM can adjust encounters accordingly.

2. Roles I like I tend to get tapped for party leader and face because of my real-life profession, which is fun to an extent but I really like to switch up roles and classes and bring whatever I can to them to make them unique and cool.

3. Roles I hate I actually love playing a cleric but I hate when the rest of the party expects you to be some kind of healbot during combat. I tell them that I am a servant of my goddess, not a babysitter for fools who are unable to engage in proper tactics and self-defense during combat (paraphrasing a brilliant explanation I found online somewhere). Reckless and foolish players fall to the bottom of my heal on demand list, and most of the time I will be using my divine spells for my goddess's purposes in battle and heal them afterward.

Though not a role per se, I do dislike players who don't act like a part of a team and don't respect team goals and decision-making and loyalty. Ttrpgs are a team game.

1. Boring Roles Roles are only boring if you play them that way. And you should never let the rest of your party try to limit or control how you play your character, as long as you are being a team player. Some players just want to fight, others prefer noncombat roleplay, but in my opinion, the best and funnest players immerse themselves in all aspects of play.

My current Tapas work is inspired by a ttrpg campaign and the initial party has four members: an elven two weapon fighter, an elven sorcerer leader, an elven rogue, and a dwarven healer/fighter.

1. I like them pretty much for the same reasons others have said so MOVING ON...

2. I like playing tanks. They can be whatever class. Any build that is a dumb damage sponge is my jam. Not a fan of playing rpgs all nervously I like being absolute menace. I'm gonna german suplex that big bad. It might take me 56 damage but I will german suplex that big bad! which brings me to...

3. Any squishy build. If I get hit and my reaction is "oh god am I dead?" I'm not going to have a fun time.

4. No, not really. My problem isn't boredom with roles its anxiety/nervousness.

1. I like them, helps to balance the game out
2. I like Tanking and I like versatile spell casters, like the Bard, who serve a social/support tole.
3. I'm not big on sheer DPS, I'm not the kind of guy who feels content if number big
4. Nah, it all depends on how you play.

(This is just a long answer to 1)
My system agnostic answer would be it depends on the type of game you’re running. I’m coming from a very World of Darkness centric, GM/ST perspective, though.

In Vampire: the Masquerade, the same character will become a very different person depending on if they were turned into a Venture (rich, aristocratic vampires), a Nosferatu (Count Orlock look alikes) or a Malkavian (mentally unwell mind readers). Even if you think a certain clan’s “thing/appeal” seems restrictive, you can explore that by creating a character who doesn’t “fit” and the drama that comes with it. You can also make a “Caitiff,” a vampire who doesn’t fit into a pre-established clan and therefore the player can pick and choose whatever abilities they desire (within their point budget). I’ve seen many advise against making them because canonically, they’re often rejected by vampire society, some even considering them a sign of the end. It is, however, a game where one of the main clan’s logo is literally an upside down anarchy symbol. Fighting the power is one of the codified themes of the game.

In Hunter: The Vigil, factions/archetypes are still present, but they’re optional. Tier three conspiracies might be the closest analogue to traditional WoD classes, as they all have their own personalized stashes of equipment call “endowments.” Tier two compacts aren’t as personalized, but they still provide stat boosts. Tier one hunters, on the other hand, aren’t affiliated with any of faction but their immediate party. Essentially, “classless” characters are explicitly recommended for NIMBY play. Wanna a play a commercial airline pilot who does monster hunting on the side? Figure out what they can do, what they care about (and if you’re really into role playing, their relationship to their family) and naturally customize their traits from there. Maybe they join a compact over the course of the game, acting more as character development than backstory (players like getting upgrades). (The core rulebook also gives you the tools to make your own compact or conspiracy. Even going as far as to say you can pick and choose which of the pre-made groups are even canon in your game. So comparing them to clans in Vampire, let alone classes in D&D, might’ve been a stretch.)

In the original Hunter: The Reckoning… Of which, take my word with a grain of salt, I haven’t actually played it. (How can I appreciate the anime if I haven’t read the manga? Idk.) The reason I’ve been rather put off by it are the creeds (the old hunter equivalent of clans). They always seemed a little Myers-Briggsy to me. Whereas with clans, it seems like you can play against/subvert type, creeds seem to literally just be types your character is expected to fit into. (Avengers are the “take no prisoners” ones, Martyrs are the self sacrificing ones, etc.) Maybe you can try to reverse engineer it (ie: creating a character whose father was an avenger but they share more values with the redeemer creed, making redeemer choices with an avenger toolset). (Apologies to any Reckoning fans. I’m sure there’s some considerations I’m missing.)

I don’t think either way is better or worse for all cases, Masquerade is based around a classic gothic horror trope, with all the power fantasy, intrigue and angst fans of vampires would want. Since they don’t all want the same thing, clans more easily point to possible preferences. Vigil is more of a survival horror experience about regular people doing what they can to defend their communities from supernatural predators (though the option to just be a macho action hero is there). The compacts and conspiracies are only as relevant as an individual game requires.

My H:tR martyr was a sexual masochist. He loved getting hurt for the cause. There was a whole adventure where the party thought my character had been kidnapped and hunted my kidnapper down only to interrupt us in the middle of consensual roleplay. They were embarrassed and appalled. The DM and I laughed so hard.